As I wrote elsewhere, how strange it was to go from the anti-globalization left of the ‘90s to the any-one-who-opposes-globalization-is-a-bigot/racist/fascist left of the 2010s and early 2020s.
It shows they were never anti-capitalist per se - they were (and are) simply against anything that is ours/normative to Western society. Leftism/progressivism is basically anti-us-ism in that it promotes any value & movement that opposes or is in counterstand to Western culture. Look at their support for Hamas.
Ultimately the big flaw in the anti-globalization movement's thinking was that the Vietnamese woman working at the Nike factory didn't want the Nike factory to close. She wasn't a slave or prisoner, this was her best option. As long as it was all fantasy, Bob Reich or Naomi Klein could pretend that they were going to give the Vietnamese woman some better option than the Nike factory, but plainly that's not what's going to happen here so they can claim this isn't what they wanted.
No it isn’t. No country can completely offshore itself to prosperity, there just aren’t enough cushy white collar jobs to go around, plus the trade imbalance is real: office workers still need manufactured products but the countries supplying them don’t necessarily need whatever it is the white collars are producing
“It demanded noble self-sacrifice and empathy for distant suffering, which severely limited its appeal as a political program. . .” For sure, there was never an element appealing to the plight of actual workers; the proponents distanced themselves from and were often contemptuous of that class. A glaring omission is fair taxation, which has predictably brought about the failure to invest in infrastructure, and all those good jobs with it.
Globalism was taught as becoming sensitive to other cultures, a precursor to DEI. Hidden under that was producing a grad who would be a multi-lingual cog in a corporate exploitation machine.
What progressive movements? You mean the ones that actually implemented all of the neoliberal policies since the 1990s? Those are Wall Street controlled left. You have to be silly to believe they have anything to do with the real left.
Why is KriKorian promoting a total fraud? A socialist state would just create the jobs necessary to accommodate the increase in immigrants rather than waiting for the market to produce green shoots of immigrant entrepreneurs to create the jobs. The US has plenty of space available for immigrants. Also, a government job guarantee would be a socialist policy. Let’s not forget that the US is not even in the top 20 countries for immigration. In other words, its a completely manufactured issue for the parties and the media.
@PEIOI — I’d like to believe you were drunk when you wrote this, but subsequent comments of yours below suggest this is your normal state of mind. To start, the idea of a government given job on arrival at our border is really wild considering both the fact that you don’t cite any examples of what such jobs these might be nor do you seem concerned that legal citizens already in the country also be bequeathed such employment. What exactly are the jobs you imagine passing out like Halloween candy? Moreover, how does this vision of “jobs at the ready” track with rising automation and the way it and AI will undoubtedly cancel out many jobs which presently exist?
Then there is the topic you broach regarding the size of the country versus Europe. As someone who has driven most all of the United States I can assure you that the simplistic idea of doubling the population of the United States would face major hurdles regarding sheer practicality of built environments. Never mind the fact that this would entail likely slashing the number of protected acres of forests, mountains, and so forth. To my lights, you have no thoughts on any of these fronts because your thinking is no need of them. That is because your thinking is simplistically utopian; which makes it perfect for the university seminar room, but of no use anywhere else.
In short, your comment here as well as the subsequent ones below, are in a word: unserious. Deeply unserious.
And maybe shitposting was the aim you were going for — but if not then leave the comments for those who actually want to seriously engage.
Jobs at the ready = building more built environments.
Under liberalism social relations are alienated and automated. Automation is for the capitalist class. Under socialism, social relations are organic. Automation is only as needed or necessary. So no, automation does not "undoubtedly" cancel out jobs.
You just added further proof to my point about how what you have written in these threads so far is perfect for the college seminar room but of zero use anywhere else because it is so simplistically utopian, as well as so abstract, as to be absurd.
I'm trying to be generous here, but your version of socialism seems to be something like "a dictatorship of enlightened experts in possession of magic wands that can make all Good Things appear instantaneously at will."
Sounds like sarcasm actually. But if you are serious, im open for discussion. A socialist constitution would make a capitalist class, dictatorship, or ruling class illegal. Technocrats will still be needed, but must share decision making power with stakeholders. Thus, democratized.
Yes I was being sarcastic, as have you at various points. I'm somewhat surprised that you value democratization given that you have also said freedom shouldn't be a guiding value. They don't seem separable to me. My question here is what if a majority of "stakeholders," i.e. citizens, don't agree with your plan to invite everyone on earth to show up and get an instant lifetime job guarantee. Wouldn't their democratic power allow them to overrule your preference for unlimited immigration?
Freedom leads to competitive pluralism (special interest groups) and government as a political market. Majoritarianism doesn't go well with freedom. It goes best with people who share and hold the same values.
I thought he was talking about the stats I quoted in the OP. Did you see the edited post about USA vs. Europe? Plenty of room.
About democracy. A socialist society will have a socialist constitution based on the values and principles of socialism. Thus, im assuming socialist citizens who all support the constitution. There may be some small opposition based on a remnant of RW conservatives. But since, labor wont be an issue it really doesn't make sense for even conservatives to be against immigration.
How is austerity a key aspect of Neo liberalism? You claim Neo liberalism was in control for a long while and then died recently, yet no western county practiced austerity of any kind during this time. In fact, quite the opposite. Spending, debt, and money printing all hit record levels for decades and decades in every Neo-liberal country. Look at the debt levels!
Anti-Austerity is a core aspect of Neo-Liberalism. You can’t have Neo-Liberalism without unsustainable debt, constant money printing, and constant inflation. They go hand in hand.
Wait, why is neoliberalism still considered to exist? Sure the policy directions are there, but it seems impossible to believe that neoliberalism can ever be an actually held ideology anymore. Even people with hands over their ears can't meaningfully engage with policy without addressing that quite literally no neoliberal institution has ever transcended the state that enacts it. It can only ever be held politically — not ideologically.
As I wrote elsewhere, how strange it was to go from the anti-globalization left of the ‘90s to the any-one-who-opposes-globalization-is-a-bigot/racist/fascist left of the 2010s and early 2020s.
The "left", as in socialists, really should've never let that line be breached.
It is kind of weird to watch historical anti-capitalists complain about the possible destruction of capitalism.
It shows they were never anti-capitalist per se - they were (and are) simply against anything that is ours/normative to Western society. Leftism/progressivism is basically anti-us-ism in that it promotes any value & movement that opposes or is in counterstand to Western culture. Look at their support for Hamas.
Wow
Ultimately the big flaw in the anti-globalization movement's thinking was that the Vietnamese woman working at the Nike factory didn't want the Nike factory to close. She wasn't a slave or prisoner, this was her best option. As long as it was all fantasy, Bob Reich or Naomi Klein could pretend that they were going to give the Vietnamese woman some better option than the Nike factory, but plainly that's not what's going to happen here so they can claim this isn't what they wanted.
Is the "abundance mentality" just warmed over, downwardly mobile neoliberalism?
No it isn’t. No country can completely offshore itself to prosperity, there just aren’t enough cushy white collar jobs to go around, plus the trade imbalance is real: office workers still need manufactured products but the countries supplying them don’t necessarily need whatever it is the white collars are producing
The pity is that the Left can offer no vision of the future other doubling-down on what failed.
“It demanded noble self-sacrifice and empathy for distant suffering, which severely limited its appeal as a political program. . .” For sure, there was never an element appealing to the plight of actual workers; the proponents distanced themselves from and were often contemptuous of that class. A glaring omission is fair taxation, which has predictably brought about the failure to invest in infrastructure, and all those good jobs with it.
Globalism was taught as becoming sensitive to other cultures, a precursor to DEI. Hidden under that was producing a grad who would be a multi-lingual cog in a corporate exploitation machine.
What progressive movements? You mean the ones that actually implemented all of the neoliberal policies since the 1990s? Those are Wall Street controlled left. You have to be silly to believe they have anything to do with the real left.
Why is KriKorian promoting a total fraud? A socialist state would just create the jobs necessary to accommodate the increase in immigrants rather than waiting for the market to produce green shoots of immigrant entrepreneurs to create the jobs. The US has plenty of space available for immigrants. Also, a government job guarantee would be a socialist policy. Let’s not forget that the US is not even in the top 20 countries for immigration. In other words, its a completely manufactured issue for the parties and the media.
No True Leftism!
@PEIOI — I’d like to believe you were drunk when you wrote this, but subsequent comments of yours below suggest this is your normal state of mind. To start, the idea of a government given job on arrival at our border is really wild considering both the fact that you don’t cite any examples of what such jobs these might be nor do you seem concerned that legal citizens already in the country also be bequeathed such employment. What exactly are the jobs you imagine passing out like Halloween candy? Moreover, how does this vision of “jobs at the ready” track with rising automation and the way it and AI will undoubtedly cancel out many jobs which presently exist?
Then there is the topic you broach regarding the size of the country versus Europe. As someone who has driven most all of the United States I can assure you that the simplistic idea of doubling the population of the United States would face major hurdles regarding sheer practicality of built environments. Never mind the fact that this would entail likely slashing the number of protected acres of forests, mountains, and so forth. To my lights, you have no thoughts on any of these fronts because your thinking is no need of them. That is because your thinking is simplistically utopian; which makes it perfect for the university seminar room, but of no use anywhere else.
In short, your comment here as well as the subsequent ones below, are in a word: unserious. Deeply unserious.
And maybe shitposting was the aim you were going for — but if not then leave the comments for those who actually want to seriously engage.
Jobs at the ready = building more built environments.
Under liberalism social relations are alienated and automated. Automation is for the capitalist class. Under socialism, social relations are organic. Automation is only as needed or necessary. So no, automation does not "undoubtedly" cancel out jobs.
You just added further proof to my point about how what you have written in these threads so far is perfect for the college seminar room but of zero use anywhere else because it is so simplistically utopian, as well as so abstract, as to be absurd.
does that include illegal immigration too?
Yes.
USA: 4M sq mi and 340M people.
Europe: 4M sq mi and 750M people.
More than twice as many people in the same space.
I'm trying to be generous here, but your version of socialism seems to be something like "a dictatorship of enlightened experts in possession of magic wands that can make all Good Things appear instantaneously at will."
Sounds like sarcasm actually. But if you are serious, im open for discussion. A socialist constitution would make a capitalist class, dictatorship, or ruling class illegal. Technocrats will still be needed, but must share decision making power with stakeholders. Thus, democratized.
Yes I was being sarcastic, as have you at various points. I'm somewhat surprised that you value democratization given that you have also said freedom shouldn't be a guiding value. They don't seem separable to me. My question here is what if a majority of "stakeholders," i.e. citizens, don't agree with your plan to invite everyone on earth to show up and get an instant lifetime job guarantee. Wouldn't their democratic power allow them to overrule your preference for unlimited immigration?
Freedom leads to competitive pluralism (special interest groups) and government as a political market. Majoritarianism doesn't go well with freedom. It goes best with people who share and hold the same values.
I thought he was talking about the stats I quoted in the OP. Did you see the edited post about USA vs. Europe? Plenty of room.
About democracy. A socialist society will have a socialist constitution based on the values and principles of socialism. Thus, im assuming socialist citizens who all support the constitution. There may be some small opposition based on a remnant of RW conservatives. But since, labor wont be an issue it really doesn't make sense for even conservatives to be against immigration.
How is austerity a key aspect of Neo liberalism? You claim Neo liberalism was in control for a long while and then died recently, yet no western county practiced austerity of any kind during this time. In fact, quite the opposite. Spending, debt, and money printing all hit record levels for decades and decades in every Neo-liberal country. Look at the debt levels!
Anti-Austerity is a core aspect of Neo-Liberalism. You can’t have Neo-Liberalism without unsustainable debt, constant money printing, and constant inflation. They go hand in hand.
On Slobodian: https://econjwatch.org/articles/misrepresenting-mises-quotation-editing-and-a-rejection-of-peer-review-at-cambridge-university-press
Wait, why is neoliberalism still considered to exist? Sure the policy directions are there, but it seems impossible to believe that neoliberalism can ever be an actually held ideology anymore. Even people with hands over their ears can't meaningfully engage with policy without addressing that quite literally no neoliberal institution has ever transcended the state that enacts it. It can only ever be held politically — not ideologically.